Magnetic Monopoles

This is a discussion on Magnetic Monopoles within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; This article is creating quite a stir at slashdot .
It is very interesting news. I remember taking an electrostatics ...

Magnetic Monopoles

It is very interesting news. I remember taking an electrostatics physics course a couple years back, and my professor specifically talked about how they hadn't (up until that point in time) been able to find monopoles.

Well, the first implication of monopoles is that the magnetic flux through a closed surface does not have to be zero. This means that Maxwell's equations are incomplete. In turn, that means that the behavior of light when passing through monopolar matter should exhibit a range of new properties that have not been observed before.

The points are less than a nanometre apart, and cannot be measured directly. Nevertheless, Morris and other physicists believe they are there.

The charge isn't attached to any physical object, but it behaves just as a monopole would.

We're talking about something on the quantum scale - and people like to 'see' things there.
I'm not saying outright that they don't exist, just that this hasn't convinced me, and that it isn't solid enough to go touting "we have proof of monopoles".

Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

Are you really so foolish to compare your ridiculous statements to verified empirical evidence? And what does your logical fallacy prove in the context of this thread other than you have issues with those who believe in God. Ya know for one who doesn't believe in a God you sure talk about him more than those of us here who do which I find to be a bit peculiar.

But to stay on track your example has no bearing on the content of the article nor on the methods they used to prove their theory.

Are you really so foolish to compare your ridiculous statements to verified empirical evidence? And what does your logical fallacy prove in the context of this thread other than you have issues with those who believe in God. Ya know for one who doesn't believe in a God you sure talk about him more than those of us here who do which I find to be a bit peculiar.

But to stay on track your example has no bearing on the content of the article nor on the methods they used to prove their theory.

The evidence is not verified, as stated in the article, and much more apparent if you actually read the original article in Science, the alleged monopoles are not directly measurable, and they do not exist without an equal number of opposite poles.

And GOD is a useful analogy for any belief that is fallacious on its face, yet firmly defended by the uneducated or misinformed.

Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

The evidence is not verified, as stated in the article, and much more apparent if you actually read the original article in Science, the alleged monopoles are not directly measurable, and they do not exist without an equal number of opposite poles.

What does "directly measurable" mean? You can't even directly measure the computer screen in front of you. Your eyes see photons, not "things." We infer the existence of matter by how it interacts with photons, since photons are the only thing our visual system (the most detailed sensory system) can perceive.

What does "directly measurable" mean? You can't even directly measure the computer screen in front of you. Your eyes see photons, not "things." We infer the existence of matter by how it interacts with photons, since photons are the only thing our visual system (the most detailed sensory system) can perceive.

You can't see an electron any more than a magnetic monopole.

You are just backpedaling now.

They are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Because A would cause us to observe B, and we observed B therefor A is TRUE.

If the tooth fairy exists then leaving our tooth under our pillow would cause money to appear in its place, since money always appeared in its place when I was a child, the tooth fairy must exist?

Because magnetic monopoles would cause the observed phenomenon, and they observed that phenomenon, therefor magnetic monopoles are the only explanation?

Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

They are not admitting trueness to anything, abachler. They are constructing a theory based on some pretty hard evidence.

Somehow this discussion is a repeat of the Atom discovery. Since ancient times (funny that just 48 hours ago I was talking of Democritus) the existence of the Atom has been debated in scientific terms. Throughout history, the evidence of its existence was corroborated by hard evidence. Democritus, by observing the difference in areas of the faces of sliced objects, then much later in the 17th century when Boyle started observing the properties of chemical elements, and so on, until Cambridge in the late 1920s.

In each iteration, each discovery of new evidence that helped formulate the theory, the deniers emerged with pretty much the same type of arguments as you. There could have been other explanations for the observable effects besides the existence of Atoms. And many tried! However, they never realized the search wasn't for the atom. The Atom was a theory that eventually proved correct. The search instead was for the fundamental particle... whatever that could be, whatever properties it might have.

The gentlemen behind that article are researches. Scientists bent on producing sound theories and testing them in the best traditions of the scientific method. You however have done no such thing. You argue over their discoveries without producing nothing but empirical observation of questionable validity in the best tradition of Plato who is known to have said "Science is nothing but perception". This is the same man (him and his disciple) the Church decided was a good source of philosophy to plunge Europe into the Dark Ages of thought.

And despite all this, despite the fact these are real researchers specialized in their fields doing hard work for the advancement of science regardless of success or failure, you dare call them or anyone excited at the possibilities of their findings, misinformed and uneducated when you can't even tell the difference between a theory and a beer truck? What an idiot.

Because A would cause us to observe B, and we observed B therefor A is TRUE.

If the tooth fairy exists then leaving our tooth under our pillow would cause money to appear in its place, since money always appeared in its place when I was a child, the tooth fairy must exist?

That is pretty astute IMO. I think only a non-scientist who reveres science excessively (eg, not clergy but devout flock) would refute the fact that this is a reality esp. in contemporary quantum physics -- since there are mutually incompatible attempts at "Grand Unification", etc, and one way or another they probably will be resolved on the basis of exactly what abachler is saying: that if you predefine the meaning of your observations sufficiently, it becomes easier to make the observations, but that may not be evidence of the fact that you are getting closer to the truth.

So such could be the case here. The criticism can be addressed specifically for the case in point, but I do not think it is very intelligent to just claim the criticism can never be levelled against mainstream science, since it is above all that and could not possibly go wrong, which is why all scientists agree 100% about everything.

And what exactly do you propose? Rewriting the pages of the scientific method?

A theory is nothing more than roadmap for experimentation. It supports itself around a tentative explanation, but it is no more than a roadsign in the path for truth. Just like Kepler shown us, a solid theory can and should be discarded if it reaches a dead-end in which experimentation and hard observation proves it to be wrong (which was especially hard on his case, but he did it anyway).

When a scientist formulates a theory, he's doing so in an attempt to explain something. If initial experiments seem to strengthen the theory he proceeds. And does so until the theory is refuted or confirmed. Other scientists may join alone or in collaboration with their own theories and their own experiments. Such is the nature of the scientific method.

To cry that just because something seems to prove the existence of something else it doesn't mean that something else really exists, is useless. That is not something a scientist doesn't know already. He knows it perfectly well. That is why he keeps experimenting until his theory reaches that state of fact.

But to use that same argument as a means to refute a theory? Well then, that's exactly the Platonian argument. The idea that truth can only be achieved through mere thought and that the scientific method is unnecessary and even wrong. Without a theory, you don't make science. And a theory proved wrong is as useful to science as theory proved right. Success is measure by adding failure.